Karnataka High Court
B Bheemanaik S/O. Chandranaik vs L Bheema Naik S/O. Heeranaik on 7 July, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
RSA No. 100729 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
RSA NO.100729 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
B. BHEEMANAIK S/O. CHANDRANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI THANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. L. BHEEMA NAIK S/O. HEERANAIK,
AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: High
2. L NEELYA NAIK S/O. LACHHA NAIK,
Court of
Karnataka, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad OCC: MEMBER CUM SCRETARY
SRI SEVALAL BANAJAR VIDYA SAMSTHE
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
3. L BHEEMA NAIK S/O. NANYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
RSA No. 100729 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. L BHEEMA NAIK S/O. DYAVA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
5. D OMYANAIK S/O. DEVLAYNAIK,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT KANDIKERE TANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
6. THE DISTRICT REGISTER OF SOCIETIES
AND FIRMS BINNY COMPANY ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
7. L RAMACHANDRANAIK S/O. SOMLANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
8. L TEKYANAIK S/O. HAMYANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT ITTIGUDI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT - 583 201.
9. L UMESHNAIN S/O. LOKYANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT - 583 102.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 23.07.2018 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI IN R.A.NO.4/2018 AND ALSO THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2015 PASSED BY CIVIL
JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.86/2009 AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
RSA No. 100729 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff No.1,
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd August
2015, passed in O.S. No.86/2009 by the Civil Judge,
Harapanahalli (for short "the trial Court") by which the suit
filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The said dismissal of the
suit was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 23rd
July 2018 passed in R.A. No.4/2018 by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli (for short "the First
Appellate Court").
2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a
declaration and a consequential relief of perpetual
injunction, challenging the proceedings of the General Body
Meeting and the elections of the Members held during
2003-04 and 2007-08, with respect to Sri Sevalal Banajara
(Lambani) Education Society, registered under the Societies
Registration Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
HC-KAR
3. A written statement was filed to the said suit on
the grounds that there was no cause of action and that the
suit was barred by limitation.
4. The trial Court framed the issues and additional
issues for its consideration.
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the list
submitted by the defendant No.1 to 4 before
the defendant No.6 is illegal as proved as per
the majority in the meeting held on 29-04-
2007?
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction against the defendants
No. 1 to 5 as alleged in the plaint?
3. Whether defendants prove that the suit is not
maintainable as the Civil Court has jurisdiction
to try the suit?
4. Whether defendants prove that the defendant
has not complied the provisions of Sec.80(1) of
CPC?
5. Whether defendants prove that the suit is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties?
6 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
as sought for?
7. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is
not maintainable as no cause of action arose to
the plaintiff to institute the suit against the
defendants?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
HC-KAR
5. The trial Court treated the additional issue as a
preliminary issue, answered it in the affirmative, and
consequently dismissed the suit as not maintainable by the
impugned judgment and decree.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court, the plaintiffs, preferred an appeal in R.A.
No.4/2018 before the First Appellate Court.
7. The First Appellate Court framed the following
points for its consideration.
1. Whether judgment and decree passed by the
trial court is perverse, illegal capricious one
sided and interference of this appellate court is
necessary?
2. Whether trial court has failed to appreciate the
oral and documentary evidence in a proper
prospective manner?
3. What order?
8. On re-appreciation, the First Appellate Court
answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and
consequently dismissed the said appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
HC-KAR
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First
Appellate Court, plaintiff No.1 has preferred the present
appeal before this Court.
10. There is a delay of 1415 days in filing the present
appeal, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act has been filed along with an affidavit seeking
condonation of the inordinate delay.
11. It is contended that the appellant's financial
difficulties prevented him from filing the appeal within the
prescribed time. The trial Court and the First Appellate
Court, while taking note of the orders passed by this Court
in W.P. No.13198/2007, dated 18.06.2008 and the order
dated 26.03.2009 in W.A. No.1168/2009, observed that
liberty had been reserved to the plaintiffs to seek recourse
under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration
Act. Since the Act provides an effective remedy under
Section 25 of the Act, both the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court held that the suit was not maintainable.
However, the appellant has approached this Court,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
HC-KAR
challenging the aforesaid findings and conclusions of the
trial Court and the First Appellate Court, with a delay of
1415 days.
12. Heard. Perused the records.
13. The appellant appears to be espousing the cause
concerning the management and administration of the
Society, which is governed by the Special Legislation
namely the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, which
aspect of the matter was duly considered by the trial Court
and the First Appellate Court in the light of the orders
passed by this Court in the writ petition and writ appeal. No
error can be found in that regard.
14. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the
application reveals that it only refers to the appellant's
alleged financial constraints in approaching the Court.
Further, the application fails to establish sufficient cause as
contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in
approaching the Court by filing the appeal within the
prescribed period of limitation to justify the condonation of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451
HC-KAR
the inordinate delay of 1415 days. Condonation of delay is a
discretionary power, and in the absence of any justifiable
cause shown by the appellant, this Court finds no reason to
condone the said inordinate delay. Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
